Op­po­si­tion leader Kam­la Per­sad-Bisses­sar has main­tained that there is no doubt that At­tor­ney Gen­er­al Regi­nald Ar­mour “lied on an af­fi­davit to a court of law” and has re­peat­ed her call for him to re­sign.

“Ar­mour’s pa­thet­ic at­tempt to hide be­hind an ap­peal of his dis­qual­i­fi­ca­tion is a non-is­sue. The re­sult of that ap­peal does not change the fact that Regi­nald Ar­mour lied on an af­fi­davit pre­sent­ed to a Mi­a­mi court, which is a crime. For this in­dis­putable fact alone, he must be re­moved as At­tor­ney Gen­er­al,” Per­sad-Bisses­sar said in a news re­lease on Wednes­day.

She list­ed sev­er­al cat­e­gories un­der which she out­lined the rea­sons for her in­sis­tence that Ar­mour did not tell the truth.

The first cat­e­go­ry was la­belled, “He claimed he was a ju­nior lawyer on the mat­ter.”

Per­sad-Bisses­sar point­ed out that the le­gal team rep­re­sent­ing for­mer fi­nance min­is­ter Bri­an Kuei Tung at the Mag­is­trate’s Court in the Pi­ar­co Air­port cor­rup­tion tri­al was Al­lan Alexan­der SC, Regi­nald Ar­mour SC and Ian Brooks.

“The ju­nior lawyer on the team was Mr Brooks, not Mr Ar­mour. At the time Mr Ar­mour rep­re­sent­ed Mr Kuei Tung in the Mag­is­trate Court mat­ters, he was a se­nior coun­sel,” Per­sad-Bisses­sar said.

Per­sad-Bisses­sar’s sec­ond cat­e­go­ry was ti­tled, “He claimed he was a note-tak­er.”

Per­sad-Bisses­sar said, “Mr Ar­mour is telling Trinidad and To­ba­go and the Mi­a­mi court that as a ‘ju­nior lawyer’, all he did was min­i­mal le­gal re­search and tak­ing notes. The records will re­flect that Mr Ar­mour was ac­tive­ly par­tic­i­pat­ing in the Mag­is­trate Court mat­ter. He made writ­ten sub­mis­sions as Se­nior Coun­sel on be­half of his client.”

She ar­gued that he al­so ad­vo­cat­ed ver­bal­ly on be­half of his client sev­er­al times and that he al­so cross-ex­am­ined a wit­ness on be­half of his client.

Un­der her third cat­e­go­ry, “Re­cusal,” Per­sad-Bisses­sar not­ed that Ar­mour said that “he walled off him­self from the mat­ter and that he re­cused him­self from the Mi­a­mi case.”

She said, “A look at his par­tic­i­pa­tion in this case since his ap­point­ment as the At­tor­ney Gen­er­al shows 1, That he was pro­vid­ed with a sta­tus re­port on the mat­ter which in­volved mat­ters with his for­mer client, Mr Kuei Tung; 2, He was in­volved in the lo­gis­tics for the tri­al; 3, He named per­sons to at­tend me­di­a­tion.”

She said he al­so named peo­ple to at­tend tri­al, man­aged the pay­ment of le­gal fees, signed a set­tle­ment agree­ment and spoke to the le­gal team on three sep­a­rate oc­ca­sions as AG - on March 30, April 10 and April 14.

She said he al­so dealt with the lo­gis­tics to bring and house a wit­ness from Trinidad and To­ba­go for the tri­al, au­tho­rised the drop­ping of cer­tain claims brought by the Gov­ern­ment in the Mi­a­mi court and is named as a wit­ness on the Wit­ness List for the tri­al.

“The Wit­ness List was filed one day be­fore he left Trinidad and To­ba­go. He made a de­c­la­ra­tion on penal­ty of per­jury which was filed in the mat­ter, to op­pose the ap­pli­ca­tion to dis­qual­i­fy him and Se­quor Law,” she said.

Per­sad-Bisses­sar said based on the ex­ten­sive in­volve­ment of Ar­mour in the Mi­a­mi mat­ter, the Mi­a­mi court had to re­mind him in the judg­ment of the du­ties of at­tor­neys at law in re­la­tion to for­mer clients.

“If he told Se­quor Law about his con­flict of in­ter­est, why was it not raised with the Court? Why did the De­fen­dants have to bring it to the at­ten­tion of the Court through the Mo­tion to Dis­qual­i­fy?” she asked.

She is call­ing on Prime Min­is­ter Dr Kei­th Row­ley to dis­miss Ar­mour.

“Due to his own ar­ro­gance, the time al­lowed for Ar­mour to do the ho­n­ourable act of re­sign­ing has passed. Kei­th Row­ley must act and re­voke Regi­nald Ar­mour’s ap­point­ment as At­tor­ney Gen­er­al.”

CLICK FOR MORE NEWS